U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2012, 09:28 PM
 
41,051 posts, read 42,849,929 times
Reputation: 17274

Advertisements

Harry has provided a great explanation, we've prevented forest fires for the last century. Now we're paying the price. Forest fire are natural and healthy for a forest, these fires due to all the fuel on the ground are devastating whether it's the forest or man made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2012, 09:30 PM
 
41,051 posts, read 42,849,929 times
Reputation: 17274
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazyn View Post
Of course I am not saying we shouldn't try to put them out as fast as humanly possible, but all is not lost.
They need to burn to get back to a natural balance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 9,168,136 times
Reputation: 1632
Maybe we could thin the forests and brush so the fires wouldn't be so bad and lose so many houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 12:33 PM
 
26,205 posts, read 33,020,881 times
Reputation: 23512
First off, fire was part of the cycle for thousands of years. Only within the last 100 years, we started to start with suppression efforts when it comes to fires. In doing this, we have denser forests and more fuels which burn hotter. Fires burn hotter, the more the soil becomes sterilized and harder to start the cycle.

In addition, with selective logging, it could help in managing fuels. However, it is such a battle to do sensible logging (not clear cutting) which is met with resistance. Also with houses build close to the forest, steps to make the homes defensible are not. There is no way a house is worth more my life as a firefighter.

As far as technology, yes they have improved. New techniques and tools, such as foams help to make forward progress. Since the discovery of fire, fire still burns the same. In some instances, fire can be a great tool.

Sometimes it best to let nature do its thing, we often can’t improve on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 02:39 PM
 
15,922 posts, read 17,885,861 times
Reputation: 7647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
Maybe we could thin the forests and brush so the fires wouldn't be so bad and lose so many houses.
What makes more sense is to let nature take it's course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 05:46 PM
 
18,766 posts, read 56,555,369 times
Reputation: 33187
One aspect of this that I hadn't considered before is that forest fires add a lot of particulate matter to the atmosphere, which reduces the amount of sunlight that reaches ground level. Could part of reducing temperatures globally mean allowing more forest fires?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 9,168,136 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
What makes more sense is to let nature take it's course.
Suppose we use a lot of trees instead of letting them burn?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2012, 06:34 PM
 
26,205 posts, read 33,020,881 times
Reputation: 23512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
Suppose we use a lot of trees instead of letting them burn?
That would make sense. That will never work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 08:24 AM
 
41,051 posts, read 42,849,929 times
Reputation: 17274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
Suppose we use a lot of trees instead of letting them burn?
It's not a matter of letting the trees burn, it's matter of letting the fuel on the ground burn frequently. When you allow nature take it's course with smaller but more frequent fires the trees have a better chance of surviving and the overall recovery is much faster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 04:44 PM
 
15,922 posts, read 17,885,861 times
Reputation: 7647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
Suppose we use a lot of trees instead of letting them burn?
If the tree-huggers stopped the clearing out of dead brush/wood in our forests you really think the tree-huggers would approve your idea?

LMAO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top